Do you want leather or cloth seats asks the salesp ✓ Solved
Half Page "Do you want leather or cloth seats?" asks the salesperson. "Do you want your baby to have brown or blue eyes?" asks the doctor. Genetic engineering has reached a point where, much like choosing a feature on a car before buying it, we can select the features of our baby before its birth. Features like height, eye color, hair color, intelligence, likelihood of illness, and more can be or will likely be selected soon. The question is, is it morally permissible to do so?
Discuss the moral implications of genetically engineering human babies. Respond to one of the following: Does it cheapen and commodify human life when we select the features of a human person like we do when purchasing a car? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Is it morally different to use genetic engineering to lower the likelihood of illness, such as diabetes, as opposed to using it to select an aesthetic feature, such as eye color?
Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) Assuming genetic engineering remains expensive and only the wealthy can afford to engineer their children with more desirable features, such as greater intelligence and a lower likelihood of illness, is it morally permissible to allow genetic engineering?
Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Is it morally different to use genetic engineering to lower the likelihood of illness as opposed to using it to select increased intelligence? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, and eudaimonia with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum ranking, and consequences. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer.
Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
Paper for above instructions
Genetic engineering has reached a pivotal point in scientific progress where parents can now select traits for their future children in a way that mirrors selecting features of a new car. This advancement, while remarkable, raises profound ethical questions about the commodification of human life. The morality of genetically engineering babies for aesthetic or health-related traits has become a subject of fierce debate among ethicists, scientists, and the public. In this essay, we explore the moral implications of such interventions through the lens of virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarianism, considering whether it is permissible to shape human life in this manner and what consequences may follow.
Commodification of Human Life
When parents are allowed to select traits like eye color, height, or intelligence, the question arises: does this cheapen and commodify human life? From a Kantian perspective, this could indeed be seen as a violation of the principle that human beings must always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785/1993). Choosing traits to satisfy parental desires risks objectifying the child as a product rather than respecting their inherent moral worth. This moral concern becomes more pronounced when selection is based on superficial traits that do not contribute to the child’s wellbeing.
Virtue Ethics vs. Kantian Ethics
Virtue ethicists would examine genetic engineering through the lens of human flourishing (eudaimonia), telos (purpose), and the cultivation of moral character. From this perspective, engineering for traits such as compassion or resilience might align with virtue ethics if it promotes human flourishing. However, engineering for beauty or athletic prowess may reflect vanity and pride—vices rather than virtues (Hursthouse, 1999). Practical wisdom (phronesis) is essential here; parents must discern whether their choices contribute to the child’s moral and overall wellbeing.
In contrast, Kantian ethics focuses on duty, universalizability, and autonomy. Engineering children for parental satisfaction risks treating them as objects and violates the imperative to respect autonomy, especially since the child has no say in the process. Kant would argue that actions are morally permissible only if they could be made universal law. Would we accept a society where everyone engineered their children for non-medical traits? The answer may reveal the action’s moral standing.
Health vs. Aesthetic Enhancement
The ethical distinction between engineering to prevent illness (e.g., diabetes) and to enhance appearance (e.g., blue eyes) is significant. From a virtue ethics standpoint, using technology to reduce suffering aligns with compassion, one of the cardinal virtues. In contrast, altering appearance may align more with superficial values (Hursthouse, 1999).
Kantian ethics would also differentiate the two. Preventing illness respects the future autonomy of the child by ensuring their basic health needs are met, whereas enhancing appearance might be considered imposing parental preferences, thereby undermining autonomy. Furthermore, illness prevention could be morally justified under the duty of beneficence—our obligation to promote others’ wellbeing (Wood, 1999).
Virtue Ethics vs. Utilitarianism
Assuming that only the wealthy can afford genetic enhancements, ethical concerns around inequality and justice arise. A virtue ethicist would worry that such access promotes arrogance, pride, and reinforces class hierarchies rather than cultivating fairness and humility (MacIntyre, 1981).
A utilitarian would analyze outcomes. If enhancing intelligence or eliminating illness increases overall happiness, and if no harm results, the action might be permissible. However, utilitarianism also values impartiality. If only the rich can afford enhancements, the policy would be unjust. Moreover, long-term consequences such as genetic class divisions may reduce collective welfare, making such practices ethically untenable (Singer, 2011).
Public Policy and Ethical Regulation
Given these philosophical insights, it becomes evident that regulatory oversight is necessary. Policies must prevent exploitation, promote equity, and ensure that genetic engineering aligns with ethical standards. For instance, laws should prohibit enhancements for non-medical traits while encouraging research aimed at eradicating hereditary diseases. Governments should subsidize beneficial therapies to ensure universal access, preventing further socioeconomic disparities.
Best Ethical Framework
While all three frameworks offer valuable perspectives, virtue ethics provides the most comprehensive account of the morally correct action. Unlike deontology, which can be rigid, and utilitarianism, which risks overlooking individual rights, virtue ethics considers the motivations, character, and ultimate flourishing of both the parents and child. It emphasizes balance, moderation, and wisdom—traits essential in navigating such complex decisions. For example, choosing to prevent a genetic disorder out of compassion and love reflects moral virtue, while engineering for aesthetics may stem from vanity.
Conclusion
Genetic engineering holds immense promise but also poses significant moral challenges. Selecting a child’s traits could commodify human life, undermine autonomy, and reinforce inequality. Through the lens of virtue ethics, we are reminded to act with wisdom, compassion, and humility, prioritizing the flourishing of the individual and society. Policymakers and scientists must ensure that this powerful technology is used to heal, not to divide or dehumanize. Ultimately, morality must guide science, not the other way around.
References
- Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
- Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (J. Ellington, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1785)
- MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
- Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Wood, A. (1999). Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.
- Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Harvard University Press.
- Habermas, J. (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Polity.
- Resnik, D. B. (2004). The moral significance of the therapy-enhancement distinction in human genetics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1), 34–44.
- Buchanan, A. (2011). Better Than Human: The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves. Oxford University Press.